An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

it doesn't, it is a meaningless question you just asked.

Do you admit that the CPSIA was meant to make people feel safe, not actually be safe?

again Irrelevant....Mattel still has to adhere to Federal regulations, but they dont have to use outside testers.

but hey it is evident you ate lead paint as a kid..

Did you read my OP where I argued that regulations are not designed to protect people? Since that was my point from the beginning how is it suddenly irrelevant?

 

[Billo_Really]

Where did I say that? What I am doing is issuing a challenge to people that support regulations to show me one that actually prevents deaths/accidents/deliberate misconduct.

Building codes. They're regulations and not complying with them has taken lives. If you try to power a 100amps through a conductor only rated for 20amps, you're going to start a fire. So we have a regulation that states, "no branch circuit shall be rated less that it's connected load". You wouldn't want to get rid of regulations like that now, would you?

How about those mine disasters (we had a couple of years ago) where many people died, because the mining company felt is was less costly to pay the fines for the safety violations (they were being written up for), than it was to purchase the equipment and make the changes needed to be in compliance with safety regs.

Or how about the gulf oil spill? BP has been written up for over 700 safety violations, which contributed to the explosion and 11 people losing their lives.

Without regulations, there is nothing ensuring public safety. Corporations aren't going to do it. All they care about is making a profit. And the only time their board rooms discuss "product safety", is when they HAVE TO!

 

[jasonnfree]

Airlines cut corners all the time on safety. Who determines if a physician is qualified? Or if a power plant is safe? I think we need an independent regulatory body whether its run by government or insurance company. I mentioned electrician because I worked in that field years ago. The mickey mouse stuff I saw on homeowners jobs I followed up on. And there, unlike your motorcyclist who only harms himself I agree, a crummy electrical job can kill some one or burn a house down and the surrounding houses. And in the world you envision, there wouldn't be a permit to pull or an inspector from the city to find your mistakes.

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

I can do anything an electrician does. the only thing regulations like that accomplish is make it harder to do simple electrical work. Do you honestly believe that an airline would hire someone who walked in off the street to fly a plane worth a few hundred million if the government didn't tell set a regulation about it? I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

 

[Dr Grump]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

Drive your family on vacation in a car made without safety regulations on a road without speed limits. If you come back, tell us how it was.

Sounds like my last road trip in New Zealand.

We have a tonne of regulations, and speed limits.....in fact, the hoops we have to go through to get a warrant of fitness every six months for our cars borders on the ridiculous....

 

[Dr Grump]

People who are timid, weak of character, and can't think for themselves love regulations. It gives them a sense of security in the big bad world.

No, people who don't like bullies, child labour supporters yadda, yadda, yadda like regulations. It makes for a more civilised world.....

 

[Billo_Really]

I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

Do you think not having, them makes you more safe? Because if you do, you can tell that to the families of those 9 US soldiers who were electrocuted while taking showers in Iraq, because the utilities were not properly grounded. Well, properly in this country, they had no electrical code there. Unless you count the IBC.

I only claim to be an expert on two subjects:

1. The Los Angeles Lakers (which we will not go there)
2. Electrical engineering (which I've been doing for the last 35 years)

 

[Dr Grump]

You want proof that a regulation saved a life. In order to do so, you have to prove that somebody was in danger - however, if that person was obeying the regulation, they wouldn't be in danger and therefore would not die...

Thread fail, big time...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

again Irrelevant....Mattel still has to adhere to Federal regulations, but they dont have to use outside testers.

but hey it is evident you ate lead paint as a kid..

Did you read my OP where I argued that regulations are not designed to protect people? Since that was my point from the beginning how is it suddenly irrelevant?

ill dumb it down for you. Company puts lead in their toys. Kids get sick, Maybe die from that. Government creates a regulation saying you can't put lead in toys. Thus saving or "protecting" future kids from having to deal with lead paint.

Now that might be to much for you to handle and thats ok.

Regulations are a good thing, they help people and save people. They also save companies as well, Over regulating can be a bad thing and should be avoided.No regulations is also a bad thing and will cause more harm than good.

Again i dont expect you to understand this, but then again this isnt for you.

Anyways your OP is a failure before you even typed it. Either you want to attempt to inflate your ego, or just hear yourself blather on.Either way it doesn't matter, You are wrong, you will be wrong in your net post, and you will be wrong in the future.

Is the question to complicated for you? How does a law that exempts the company that actually imported toys with lead protect anyone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did I say that? What I am doing is issuing a challenge to people that support regulations to show me one that actually prevents deaths/accidents/deliberate misconduct.

Building codes. They're regulations and not complying with them has taken lives. If you try to power a 100amps through a conductor only rated for 20amps, you're going to start a fire. So we have a regulation that states, "no branch circuit shall be rated less that it's connected load". You wouldn't want to get rid of regulations like that now, would you?

How about those mine disasters (we had a couple of years ago) where many people died, because the mining company felt is was less costly to pay the fines for the safety violations (they were being written up for), than it was to purchase the equipment and make the changes needed to be in compliance with safety regs.

Or how about the gulf oil spill? BP has been written up for over 700 safety violations, which contributed to the explosion and 11 people losing their lives.

Without regulations, there is nothing ensuring public safety. Corporations aren't going to do it. All they care about is making a profit. And the only time their board rooms discuss "product safety", is when they HAVE TO!

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Do laws against murder prevent murders? Do people honestly think that, without building codes, companies would not build safe houses?

Wasn't there a mining disaster recently where the company argued that regulations actually prevented them from adopting a new technology that might have saved lives?

Funny thing about the BP oil spill, there are no regulations now that did not exist before the spill, so the regulations obviously did not prevent the problem. Nor will they prevent any future problems. Obama did go out of his way to limit BP's liability for the spill, which is what regulations are intended to accomplish, so I guess that example actually proves my point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Airlines cut corners all the time on safety. Who determines if a physician is qualified? Or if a power plant is safe? I think we need an independent regulatory body whether its run by government or insurance company. I mentioned electrician because I worked in that field years ago. The mickey mouse stuff I saw on homeowners jobs I followed up on. And there, unlike your motorcyclist who only harms himself I agree, a crummy electrical job can kill some one or burn a house down and the surrounding houses. And in the world you envision, there wouldn't be a permit to pull or an inspector from the city to find your mistakes.

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

I can do anything an electrician does. the only thing regulations like that accomplish is make it harder to do simple electrical work. Do you honestly believe that an airline would hire someone who walked in off the street to fly a plane worth a few hundred million if the government didn't tell set a regulation about it? I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

Which airlines cut corners all the time?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Drive your family on vacation in a car made without safety regulations on a road without speed limits. If you come back, tell us how it was.

Sounds like my last road trip in New Zealand.

We have a tonne of regulations, and speed limits.....in fact, the hoops we have to go through to get a warrant of fitness every six months for our cars borders on the ridiculous....

I am pretty sure it crosses the line of ridiculous and crashes into the wall of absurdity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

Do you think not having, them makes you more safe? Because if you do, you can tell that to the families of those 9 US soldiers who were electrocuted while taking showers in Iraq, because the utilities were not properly grounded. Well, properly in this country, they had no electrical code there. Unless you count the IBC.

I only claim to be an expert on two subjects:

1. The Los Angeles Lakers (which we will not go there)
2. Electrical engineering (which I've been doing for the last 35 years)

What makes you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? Do you think the Army forgot to require that contractors meet appropriate federal regulations?

 

[Bfgrn]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

Yea, everyone knows that toxins, carcinogens and poisons are really good for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

Do you think not having, them makes you more safe? Because if you do, you can tell that to the families of those 9 US soldiers who were electrocuted while taking showers in Iraq, because the utilities were not properly grounded. Well, properly in this country, they had no electrical code there. Unless you count the IBC.

I only claim to be an expert on two subjects:

1. The Los Angeles Lakers (which we will not go there)
2. Electrical engineering (which I've been doing for the last 35 years)

What makes you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? Do you think the Army forgot to require that contractors meet appropriate federal regulations?

What make you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? How about corpses?

 

[Bfgrn]

Injury prevention laws save lives, report shows

Injury prevention laws save lives, report shows - Baltimore Sun

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if the hole that this windbag is digging is up to code?

 

[Toro]

Nobody drives drunk anymore? When did that happen?

Birfucation logical fallacy won't save you.

'WEDNESDAY, July 25 (HealthDay News) -- State laws that require police officers to immediately suspend a person's license when he or she fails an alcohol breath test save hundreds of lives each year, conclude University of Florida researchers.

In a study published in the August 2007 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, the researchers looked at data on alcohol-related crashes from January 1976 to December 2002, to see how state laws affected fatalities.'

Tough State DWI Laws Save Lives - ABC News

Researchers conclude all sorts of things. Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. What it actually does is make people feel good and lets politicians pretend that they are doing something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Confirmation bias of the highest order.

You asked for an example. It was given to you. You said "I don't believe it" based on absolutely nothing but your own bias.

 

[Charles_Main]

Anyone old enough to remember the horror of toxic dumping in the 60s-early 70s? People who ***** about the EPA must be too young to remember why it was formed in the first place. The same goes for other regulations, especially financial regulation, they have been in effect so long that people have forgotten that they were made for a reason.

I am Old Enough to Remember, I am also Wide Enough to see that today the EPA has gotten out of Hand in some cases.

Just because something does good, Does not mean it can not also at the same time, do bad.

Nobody wants companies dumping Toxic waste, but we also should not want an Out of Control EPA who shuts down entire Industries in Areas, to Protect 1 Species of Mouse, An EPA who's Modern Regulations would mean that MUCH of the Infrastructure we have today COULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT Because it would have never gotten past the EPA.

It's About Balance, an out of Control and Abusive EPA is no better than NO EPA at all.

 

[Charles_Main]

Researchers conclude all sorts of things. Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. What it actually does is make people feel good and lets politicians pretend that they are doing something.

That is some Silly ass logic dude. So if one person Ignores the Laws and Drives drunk it means Nobody has ever not driven Drunk because it's Illegal? Pure horse shit.

This Hits Home with me, Because, and it pains me to say this. My Brother is a Raging Alcoholic with 3 DUI's to his Name. I absolutely Guarantee that for the next 3 Years the LAW is preventing him from Driving Drunk because he is spending it in Prison. I have Little Sympathy for him. It's a Long story, But lets just say I have banged my head up against that wall for Years, and Finally realized he can only be helped if he wants to be, and he does not. I am glad, both because it means others are safer, and that he is, that he is not out free to get blasted and Drive right now.

 

[g5000]

Just because something does good, Does not mean it can not also at the same time, do bad.

I don't think anyone has argued the government can do no wrong. The question was whether any regulations save lives. It has been empirically proven some decidedly do.